United States v. William Nixon
| Decision Date | 30 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 427,427 |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 49,235 U.S. 231,59 L.Ed. 207 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM C. NIXON, W. B. Biddle, and Thomas H. West, Receivers of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney General Underwood for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. W. F. Evans and W. S. Cowherd for defendants in error.
The grand jury for the western division of the western district of Missouri returned an indictment against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company and its receivers, charging that on August 16, 1913, Nixon, Biddle, and West, as receivers of said company, were operating the property and business of said corporation as a common carrier of freight, and unlawfully transported cattle from a quarantine district in Oklahoma to Kansas City, Missouri, without compliance with the rules and regulations established by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Both the indorsement and caption to this indictment described it as being for 'violation of §§ 2 and 4 of the act of March 3, 1905 (33 Stat. at L. 1264, chap. 1496, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1351).' Those sections of that act provide that 'no railroad company . . . shall transport from any quarantine state . . . to any other state any cattle . . . ' except 'in com- pliance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture.'
The defendants demurred on the ground 'that the indictment does not charge any offense for which receivers herein can be held.' The court treated the indictment as founded on the act of 1905, imposing a penalty upon railroad companies, and after argument sustained the demurrer, filing a memorandum in which he held that, under the ruling in United States v. Harris, 177 U. S. 305, 44 L. ed. 780, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609, the statute did not create an offense for which receivers could be punished.
The case is here under the criminal appeals act [34 Stat. at L. 1246, chap. 2564] on a writ of error in which the government excepts generally to the quashing of the indictment and specially to the court's construction of this act of 1905.
In view of the decision in United States v. Harris, the judgment of the court below would necessarily have to be affirmed if the case was to be determined solely by the provisions of the quarantine act of 1905, which imposes a penalty for the transportation of cattle by a railroad company. But a receiver is not a corporation, and, therefore, not within the terms of a statute applicable to railroad companies, even though cattle from an infected district transported by him would be as likely to transmit disease as if they had been shipped over the same line while it was being operated by the company itself. And, no doubt in recognition of this fact, and in order to make the remedy as broad as the evil sought to be cured, Congress, by the act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. at L. 831, chap. 145), made all of the provisions of the original quarantine act of 1905 'apply to any railroad company or other common carrier whose road or line forms any part of a route over which cattle or other live stock are transported in the course of a shipment' from a quarantine state to any other state.
The statute, as thus amended, applied to transportation of live stock over short lines belonging to private individ- uals or to lumber companies hauling freight for hire; to roads operated by trustees under power contained in a mortgage; and also to the more common case where a railroad was being operated by a receiver acting under judicial appointment. For in so far as he transports passengers and property he is a common carrier with rights and civil responsibility as such (Eddy v. Lafayette, 163 U. S. 464, 41 L. ed. 228, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1082; Hutchinson, Carr. § 77). And there is no reason suggested why a receiver, operating a railroad, should not also be subject to the penal provisions of a statute prohibiting any common carrier from transporting live stock by rail from a quarantine district into another state. Erb v. Morasch, 177 U. S. 584, 44 L. ed. 897, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 819; United States v. Ramsey, 42 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1031, 116 C. C. A. 568, 197 Fed. 144.
But it is said that the amendment, buried in the agricultural appropriation act of 1913, was unknown to the grand jury when the indictment was found, and was not construed in deciding the motion to quash. And it is contended that, inasmuch as the criminal appeals act only authorizes a review of a decision in so far as it was 'based upon the . . . construction of the statute upon which the indictment was founded' (34 Stat. at L. 1246, chap. 2564), the correct ruling that receivers are not within the act of 1905 ought not to be reversed because it now appears that they are within the terms of the act of 1913, which was not brought to the attention of the district judge, and was not therefore construed by him in fact. It is pointed out that while there is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State of New York v. United States Hildreth v. Same Atchison Co v. Same 345
-
State v. Coleman
...gentleman of the profession.' (Emphasis added.) Accord, State v. Tyrrell, 100 Conn. 101, 102, 122 A. 924; United States v. Nixon, 235 U.S. 231, 235, 35 S.Ct. 49, 59 L.Ed. 207; 4 Wharton, op. cit. § 1761; Wright, op. The defendant's constitutional right to know the nature of the charges agai......
-
United States v. Chestnut
...1916, 6 L.Ed.2d 1253 and Galgano v. United States, 366 U.S. 967, 81 S.Ct. 1929, 6 L.Ed.2d 1257 (1961). 7 United States v. Nixon, 235 U.S. 231, 235, 35 S.Ct. 49, 59 L.Ed. 207 (1914); United States v. Meyer, 266 F.2d 747, 753 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 875, 80 S.Ct. 138, 4 L.Ed.2d 113......
-
State v. Huffman
...§ 62; State v. Thacker Coal and Coke Company, 49 W.Va. 140, 38 S.E. 539; State v. Heaton, 23 W.Va. 773; United States v. Nixon, 235 U.S. 231, 35 S.Ct. 49, 59 L.Ed. 207; Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 18 S.Ct. 92, 42 L.Ed. 509; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 15 S.Ct. 586, ......